The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Douglas Hill and Peter Hogan, alternate Dean Mehlhorn and Ex-officio Rodney Towne. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were David Preece, Executive Director, SNHPC, Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Brandy Mitroff, Dave Elliott, Willard Dodge, Charles Cleary, Esq., Craig Heafield, Jay Marden, Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, Rick Kohler, Ian McSweeney, Jason Martel, Gordon Russell, James Denesevich, Donna Mombourquette, Jeffrey Enman, Patricia Monbouquette, Raymond Shea, Tris Gordon, Bob and Carol Huettner, Ed Colburn, John McLellan, Skip Gomes, Warren Houghton, and Ken Lombard.
Meeting with David Preece, Executive Director, SNHPC
Present in the audience were David Preece, Executive Director, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, Dwight Lovejoy, Selectmen, and Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission. The Chairman read the public hearing notice and asked David Preece to present to the Board.
David Preece thanked the Board for allowing him to speak with the Board. He stated that the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, (SNHPC), continued to be available to New Boston as it had been for the last forty-four years. He continued that the purpose of the SNPC was to foster better cooperation and coordination between the various planning boards and town officials.
David Preece indicated that the SNHPC had been working on two projects over the last two years that specifically related to New Boston; the Piscataquog Watershed Land Conservancy Plan and the Regional Economic Development Plan.
David Preece explained that the Piscataquog Watershed Land Conservancy Plan required that the SNHPC work with the eleven communities that were adjacent to the Piscataquog River for the purpose of identifying which lands were the most important for preservation and conservation. He noted that the Piscataquog River Management Plan had recently been updated.
David Preece stated that the SNHPC was finishing their work on the Regional Economic Development Plan that included all thirteen municipalities. He went on to say that the recommendations from the Regional Impact Development Plan could be incorporated into the Town’s Master Plan and CIP.
David Preece advised that the SNHPC would like to work with New Boston on updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan. He explained that this plan was important in light of the flooding over the last five years. He stated that FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security required that towns have an updated plan at all times. He added that the Town was also required to have an updated Emergency Operations Plan. He further added that the SNPC would be working with the Town’s emergency management team to complete the appropriate updates.
David Preece stated that the SNHPC would like to work with New Boston to conduct an audit of all the Town’s facilities and buildings for purposes of creating recommendations on ways to reduce energy consumption. He noted that this project was being instituted by the Office of Energy and Planning.
David Preece stated that the SNHPC would also like to implement the Safe Routes to School Program in New Boston. He explained that the program was sponsored by NHDOT and promoted walking within a two mile radius of elementary and middle schools. He further explained that the program provided 100% funding for improvements that encouraged walking, i.e., sidewalks and crosswalks. He noted that this was a voluntary program.
David Preece indicated that the SNHPC would be applying with the other eight Planning Commissions this year for a Federal HUD/EPA/DOT sustainability grant. He stated that the SNHPC was hopeful for New Boston’s participation in creating a plan for the region. He explained that the plan would focus on sustainability. He pointed out that those towns that chose to participate, and were able to identify projects that required future funding, would receive higher priority status by the federal government for funds.
David Preece advised the Board that the SNHPC membership fees of $0.63 per capita were the lowest of all the nine regional planning commissions in New Hampshire. He stated that the membership fees had not been changed for the last eighteen years. He continued that the money retained from the membership fees was used for a 20% match for the federal highways, transit funds, Hazard Mitigation Plans, as well as other programs.
David Preece asked the Board for any questions.
The Chairman pointed out for the record that this discussion was relative to items number 10 and 14 under Miscellaneous Business.
The Chairman asked for clarification that the Safe Routes to School Program provided 100% funding for plan items. David Preece answered that funding would be provided for actual construction items. The Chairman asked if funds would be provided for a plan requirement of two miles of sidewalk. David Preece answered that the plans would identify existing areas that were most advantageous for students to travel on. He continued that if the plan required some of the areas to be improved then the application for funds would need to be completed.
The Chairman asked for an example of a project from the Sustainable Communities Imitative that would apply to New Boston. He continued that his reasoning for asking such a question was based on his participation on the Regional Economic Development Committee that seemed to target the larger municipalities. David Preece answered that a targeted analysis had been conducted last fall that looked at each one of the municipalities and identified the industries and businesses that would be the most feasible for those areas. He indicated that fostering businesses that did not require a lot of infrastructure, i.e., tourism and home occupations, for rural communities such as New Boston and Weare was beneficial for job growth. The Chairman asked for a concrete example of what benefit New Boston would
receive from participating in the Sustainable Communities Initiative. David Preece said that the Sustainable Communities Initiative was a regional plan and would be replicated for the other eight regions. He explained that the same planning process that was used for creating Master Plans would be applied. He went on to say that goals and objectives would be created from that planning process which in turn would identify future projects. He stated that it was premature to identify specific projects prior to the completion of the planning. He noted that because natural resources were so important to New Boston’s quality of life he assumed that one project may relate to water quality and resource protection. He also noted that another project may address the recent growth impacts to New Boston. The Chairman stated that he was looking for a more concrete example. David Preece indicated that there was a possibility of the creation of
a Best Management Practices Stormwater Program as runoff was the number one cause of contaminants in the water resources system.
The Chairman asked what the SNHPC needed from the Board to indicate support of the Sustainable Communities Initiative. David Preece answered that the Board needed to submit a letter of endorsement. He continued that a sample letter of endorsement had been emailed to the Coordinator that afternoon. The Coordinator indicated that she had not checked her email after 3:30 p.m. and as such was not aware if the letter had been received.
David Preece asked for any further questions from the Board. The Chairman asked what the highest per capita membership fee was in the state. David Preece answered that the regions that included the seacoast, Nashua, and the upper lakes charged fees as high as $2.00 per capita. He informed the Board that New Boston’s estimated population of 5,129 people created $3,231.00 in membership fees to the SNHPC. He stated that the SNHPC had provided twenty-six traffic counts for New Boston and if the Town had hired a private engineer the cost would have been $6,884.00. The Chairman asked if the membership fees covered the Source Water Protection Plan. David Preece answered yes.
The Chairman asked for any additional questions or comments; there were no additional questions or comments.
David Preece invited the Board to contact him with any additional ideas for projects for New Boston.
9. Letter dated July 1, 2010, from Ed Hunter, Code Enforcement Officer, re: Thibeault Sand & Gravel for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
10. Letter copy dated July 14, 2010, received July 20, 2010, from David J. Preece, AICP, Executive Director and CEO, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, to Ms. Christine Quirk, Chairman of the New Boston Board of Selectmen, re: Sustainable Communities Initiative, for the Board’s information.
14. Email with attachment, received July 6, 2010, from David Preece, AICP, Executive Director and CEO, SNHPC, re: Sustainable Communities Initiative, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that items number 10 and 14 were related and were addressed earlier during the meeting with David Preece, Executive Director, SNHPC.
1. Approval of minutes of June 8, 2010, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of June 8, 2010, as written. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of June 22, 2010, distributed by email.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of June 22, 2010, as written. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Letter dated July 12, 2010, from Victor Lemay, re: request for extension on Conditions Precedent Deadline from August 1, 2010, to May 1, 2011, Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman indicated that the applicant was requesting to postpone construction until spring due to market conditions. Douglas Hill stated that he did not have an issue with approving the extension.
The Coordinator clarified that the applicant was also requesting an extension of the Conditions Subsequent to May 1, 2012.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the extension request by Victor Lemay to the Conditions Precedent deadline to May 1, 2011, and the Conditions Subsequent deadline to May 1, 2012, for Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
11a. Letter dated July 9, 2010, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Ms. Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Town of New Boston, re: Indian Falls/Susan Road Connection – Bussiere – Invoice clarification, for the Board’s information.
11b. Letter dated July 15, 2010, from Emile R. Bussiere, Jr., Law Offices of Bussiere & Bussiere, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Northpoint’s invoice for construction monitoring/technical review fees for Susan, Shaky Pond, Indian Falls and Bedford Road, for the Board’s information.
11c. Letter dated July 20, 2010, from Shannon Silver, Planning Board Assistant, to Emile Bussiere, Jr., SIB Trust, re: Technical Review billing from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman addressed items 11a, 11b, and 11c together as they were related. He believed that Kevin Leonard, P.E., should be allowed to bill the applicant for the time it took him compile the requested information.
12. Letter copy dated June 29, 2010, from Ridgley Mauck, P.E., Terrain Alteration Bureau, DES, to Craig Heafield, re: Gravel Excavation Operation River Road, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
13. Letter copy dated June 21, 2010, from Emily Lucas, Compliance Specialist, Land Resources Management Program, NHDES, to James F. Mills Revocable Trust, re: DES Wetlands File #2010-01097, Intent to Excavate, Bunker Hill Road, Map/Lot #1/2-8, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
15a. Letter received July 9, 2010, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Ms. Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Town of New Boston, re: Foxberry Drive –Pavement Repairs, for the Board’s information.
15b. Letter copy dated July 9, 2010, from Shannon Silver, Planning Board Assistant, to Ellen Cavallaro, Surety Claims Attorney, Berkley Surety Group, LLC, re: Bond No.: 0132236-A, Foxberry Drive – Pavement Repairs, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman addressed items 15a and 15b together as they were related. The
Coordinator stated that the Planning Office was waiting for a formal response from Berkley Surety Group advising that the Town could move forward with the proposed repairs to the above-referenced matter.
16. Letter copy dated July 13, 2010, from Burton Reynolds, New Boston Town Administrator, to Charles Cleary, Esq., Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, PLLC, re: Twin Bridge Land Management, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
17. Letter copy dated July 15, 2010, from Ed Hunter, New Boston Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, to Robert Waller, re: Non-Residential Site Plan/Building Permits, Tax Map/Lot #14/80, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
18a. Email received July 16, 2010, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Arthur Davis, Thibeault Corporation, re: Indian Falls/Susan Road Connection – Bussiere, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
18b. Letter copy dated July 15, 2010, from Terracon Consultants, Inc., to Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Susan Road Extension, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
19. Letter copy dated July 20, 2010, from DES Shoreland Program, to Estate of Katherine Johnston, c/o Dave Daniels, re: Shoreland Application, Tax Map/Lot #9/76, Bog Brook Road, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
20. Supreme Court decision, re: Pike Industries, Inc. & a. v. Brian Woodward & a., for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill asked for an explanation of the above-referenced decision. The Coordinator explained that the case addressed abandonment of a non-conforming use and indicated that if there was intent to continue it could be started up again. Douglas Hill asked what the outcome of the decision. The Coordinator answered that Pike Industries were allowed to continue the use of their asphalt plant even though they had not actually made anything for a couple of years. She continued that the reasoning for the continued use was based upon improvements to property and facility upgrades.
21. Construction Service Reports, dated May 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28 and June 1, 2, and 3, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, for SIB Trust, Indian Falls/Susan Road Connection, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman pointed out that it took almost 2 ½ months for some of the above-referenced reports to be generated; he asked if the reports were batched. The Coordinator answered that the reports were batched with the invoices. She indicated that she could request for Kevin Leonard, P.E., to send the service reports individually.
24. Board of Selectmen’s meeting minutes of June 28, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
25. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Nashua, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
Continued Discussion, re: Earth Removal Regulations
Present in the audience were Dwight Lovejoy, Selectmen, Brandy Mitroff, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Dave Elliott, Willard Dodge, Charles Cleary, Esq., Craig Heafield, Jay Marden, Ed Colburn, Skip Gomes, Warren Houghton, Bob and Carol Huettner, Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist.
The Chairman stated that the purpose of the discussion was to address the changes that were made to the Earth Removal Regulations. He noted that a second public input session was scheduled for August 24, 2010.
The Chairman indicated that most of the changes that had been made were relative to comments that were made at the last public input session. He asked the Coordinator to attach a list of major changes that had been made to the updated Earth Removal Regulations that would be mailed to interested parties.
The Chairman noted that the Exemption Section of the Earth Removal Regulations had moved to the back of the document. He continued that the beginning of the document now contained the basic set of rules for permits and appeared to be easier to read.
The Chairman indicated that Section 9 of the Earth Removal Regulations contained updates to section numbers and responsible parties.
The Chairman stated that Section 10 of the Earth Removal Regulations had been updated to include information relative to invasive species. He advised that the references to the Dam Bureau had been deleted.
The Chairman advised that Section 14 of the Earth Removal Regulations added language that allowed for the submission of an AOT permit and plan as a substitute for the Town’s Storm Water Management Plan.
The Chairman stated that Section 15 of the Earth Removal Regulations added language that allowed for the submission of an AOT permit and plan as a substitute for the Town’s Storm Water Management Plan. He continued that some redundant sections had been deleted and references to invasive species had been added.
The Chairman advised that the Board needed to make a decision with regard to hours of operation located within Section 15, B, of the Earth Removal Regulations. He indicated that the hours of operation could be one of the following: 1) Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for local hauling in New Boston only; or 2) Monday through Saturday, full day, eliminate requirement for local hauling in New Boston only; or 3) Monday through Friday, allowing for all day operation on Saturday for reclamation, stock piling, etc. The Chairman asked for comments from the Board on this matter.
The Chairman stated that the Board needed to decide whether to allow for all day operation on Saturday and whether or not to restrict hauling on Saturday to local hauling.
Rodney Towne asked if the Town could restrict to local hauling only on Saturday. The Coordinator answered that restriction to local hauling on Saturday was currently the Town’s policy. Douglas Hill stated that the restriction was impossible to regulate. Rodney Towne pointed out the regulation was prohibited on State roads. The Board decided not to restrict hauling to local only on Saturdays.
Douglas Hill believed that the only issue with operation on Saturdays pertained to the mornings. The Chairman reiterated that the Board could choose to allow operation on Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. or half a day of hauling on Saturdays with reclamation and /or stockpiling all day on site. The Coordinator added that there was also an option of Saturday operation from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for all activities.
The Board agreed to an hours of operation schedule of Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with no restrictions to local hauling only on Saturdays.
The Chairman stated that Section 16 of the Earth Removal Regulations had minor changes to language for clarity. He continued that a reference to AOT permits and invasive species had been added.
The Chairman noted that Section 18 of the Earth Removal Regulations had deleted a reference that had been made to the Board of Selectmen. He continued that the Board needed to choose one of the two following options relative to the length of Earth Removal permits: 1) A permit shall be valid for five years and the expiration date shall specified and the State and Town schedule for permitting would be the same; or 2) a permit shall be valid until such time as the
Regulator determines that the earth removal operation is no longer in compliance with these regulations or until such time as the operation is deemed to be abandoned as defined in these regulations or until such time as the owner informs the Regulator that they will no longer be running the earth removal operations.
Douglas Hill stated that he did not have a problem with the second option as the earth removal owner would still be required to meet the compliances. Rodney Towne believed the second option was reasonable as the earth removal operator would still be inspected by the State and Town. The Chairman asked what schedule the Town currently required for Earth Removal permits. The Coordinator answered that the permits were issued on an annual basis.
The Board agreed to allow for a permit to be valid until one of the three previously mentioned conditions in option number two were met.
The Chairman indicated that Appendix I of the Earth Removal Regulations had been amended for clarification of the exemption process.
The Chairman advised that the Board needed to discuss whether or not to include a specific amount of material below which either a permit or plan would not be required or below which it would not even be considered incidental to construction but the material would be removed by right. He stated that the Coordinator had copied a case that discussed what would be considered incidental. The Coordinator explained that a statutory exemption existed for being incidental. She continued that what the Chairman was discussing would be a totally different way of not requiring a permit or a plan for anything under a certain number and would be unique to New Boston. She further stated that this should not be tied to the section addressing incidental to construction as it was separate. The Chairman asked
if the Board was going to allow for that would the applicant have an opportunity to address the Board to explain why a permit should not be required. Douglas Hill asked for interested parties in the audience to offer suggestions.
Dave Elliott of Tucker Mill Road stated that years ago permits were only given for 10,000 yards or more and that most local towns had a 5,000 yard limit to require a permit. He continued that a simple drawing could be done to illustrate the excavation and that the form was typically two pages. Douglas Hill clarified that any amount under 5,000 yards would require nothing, amounts between 5,000 yards and 10,000 yards would require the short form, and any amount over 10,000 yards would require the permitting process. Dave Elliott indicated that it was common practice on individual house sites to move up to 5,000 yards of material. The Chairman asked how many tractor trailers made up 5,000 yards. Dave Elliott answered that a straight truck hauled twenty yards of fill and a tractor trailer
could haul between twenty-five and thirty yards. The Chairman estimated that 200 trucks could haul 2,500 yards. Dave Elliott added that it was not uncommon for his company to move 2,500 yards a day comfortably.
Douglas Hill asked if it would be easier to not assign an amount to incidental to construction situations. Dave Elliott stated that one of his biggest concerns of the Earth Removal Regulations was this question because it would affect every job that he worked on. Douglas Hill asked if it would be easier to have an amount assigned to incidental to construction situations. Dave Elliott answered that there probably should be an amount assigned. He continued that in the past 10,000 yard gravel permits had been issued. The Coordinator stated that the old ordinance allowed for various requirements to be waived if the amount was less than 10,000 yards. She noted that with regard to incidental to construction material that needed to be removed from the site, not just moved around, the earth removal
owner would have to reference the requirements of the Earth Removal Regulations. Douglas Hill asked if the suggestion of not requiring anything for amounts under 5,000 yards, requiring a short form for amounts between 5,000 yards and 10,000 yards, and requiring the permitting process for any amounts over 10,000 yards would be a viable option. The Coordinator stated that it was an option to think about. Dave Elliott stated that he was also concerned with the possible need for engineering due to the plan requirements.
Willard Dodge of Tucker Mill Road stated that he had read through the Earth Removal Regulations several times and he had not seen any references to permits being required for off site removal and that the only reference for requiring permits was made to excavation. The Coordinator advised that the definition of excavation was the land area used for the commercial taking of earth. She continued that the definition of excavation had always meant that material was being taken off site for the purpose of selling the material. Willard Dodge asked where the definition of excavation was located in the Earth Removal Regulations. The Chairman answered that the definition of excavation was referenced in the definitions and pointed to the state statute. Dave Elliott suggested adding language to
the section to clarify the issue of commercial. The Chairman explained that the problem with adding the proposed language to the document was that every time the state updated their language the Town would be required to as well. He continued that the definition was given on page four, Section 3, of the Earth Removal Regulations and pointed to a specific definition of excavation located in the RSA. He added that the potential for locating and updating items became necessary the more places items were repeated in a document.
Craig Heafield asked if the previous practice of issuing permits for over 10,000 yards was done per year and not per job. Douglas Hill answered that Craig Heafield’s understanding was correct.
The Chairman stated that he was unsure if it was necessary to add language to the document that acknowledged that earth removal regulations created noise and dust. Douglas Hill suggested referencing the definition of excavation as an alternative.
The Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. Rodney Towne pointed out that there was specific language from a RSA included in Section 9 of the Earth Removal Regulations and questioned why that language was permitted here but not in other instances. He also questioned why in Section I of the Earth Removal Regulations there was a reference to great ponds and navigable rivers included in the proposed ordinance when they were not applicable to New Boston. Douglas Hill asked if Section I was derived from statute. The Coordinator confirmed that Section I was derived from statute. Rodney Towne commented that the Board should be consistent. The Coordinator explained that she was waiting to hear back from Town Counsel with regard to questions within the sections
Rodney Towne referenced. She continued that the top of the section should have language added that states, “as listed in statute and also including the Town’s regulations” or keep it the way it was and clarify what was statute and what was not statute. Douglas Hill asked if the RSA that was referenced in the definition could be found in the Earth Removal Regulations. The Coordinator answered that the statute was not included in the Earth Removal Regulations because of the potential need for updating.
Brandy Mitroff of Thornton Road addressed the issue of adding the definition of excavation to the Earth Removal Regulations. She commented that she did not go to the definition page of a document first and familiarize herself with the definitions. She explained that if she read the word “excavation” she would most likely interpret it the way everyone else had and not automatically know that the word “excavation” pertained only to commercial. She suggested adding the definition of “excavation” to at least one place in the text. The Coordinator stated that the regulations are aimed at all kinds of audiences and that the Town could find itself in trouble if the definition was not updated. She cited an example of the word “subdivision” where some
towns were sued for not updating their definition and matching the state’s definition. She added that the Board had been advised by Town Counsel not to place definitions into their documents as it was very easy to forget to update them.
The Chairman asked for the Board’s thoughts on the issue of adding the definition of “excavation” to the Earth Removal Regulations. Rodney Towne stated that there had to be a better way to deal with a definition rather than just referencing a location to find the definition. He suggested attaching the referenced location to the text. Douglas Hill agreed that adding the definition would clear up confusion. The consensus of the Board was to add the definition of “excavation” to the Earth Removal Regulations.
The Chairman stated that a public input session had been scheduled for August 24, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. He added that an updated draft of the Earth Removal Regulations would be mailed out to interested parties within one week.
The Board took a five minute recess prior to the next hearing.
The Chairman seated Dean Mehlhorn as a full voting member in Mark Suennen’s absence.
NADEAU, ROBERT W. & CRYSTAL L.
Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Francestown Road a/k/a Route 136
Tax Map/Lot #4/14
Residential-Agricultural “R-A”
Present in the audience were Rick Kohler and Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission. The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that the application was accepted as complete on June 8, 2010, with a deadline for Board action of August 12, 2010. He explained that because of the Board’s summer schedule if the subdivision was not approved this evening an extension would need to be made. He indicated that the Environmental Impact Study waiver request was outstanding as the Board had wanted to complete the site walk prior to making a decision. He added that the waivers for the Traffic and Fiscal Impact Studies had previously been granted. He stated that plans showing a proposed driveway had been submitted on June 30, 2010. He advised that the question of active or
substantial development needed to be addressed. He indicated that a site walk had taken place on July 12, 2010.
Rick Kohler stated that the plan being shown this evening was for Tax Map/Lot #4/14 and was a 22.75 acre parcel. He noted that the location of the property was on Route 136, westerly of the Colburn Road and Thornton Road intersection. He indicated the location of the boundaries made up of blazed tree line and stonewalls on the plan.
Rick Kohler advised that the applicant proposed to subdivide the property into three parcels, #4/14 – 4.6 acres, #4/14-1 – 14.4 acres, and #4/14-2 – 3.7 acres. He pointed out the location of the wetlands and noted that an SWMP had been prepared for each property.
Rick Kohler indicated that the Board had concerns with lot #4/14-2 being a valid lot without the benefit of the proposed driveway. He noted that following the site walk the Board had requested that a proposed driveway be prepared for the lot in question. He stated that a proposed driveway that serviced lot #4/14-2 had been prepared and indicated that the conceptual wetland crossing that was being shown met all DES criteria and it was assumed that it would be approved if submitted. He stated that the wetlands located at the southern boundary had been delineated and as a result he would propose the construction of two culverts to facilitate the flow of the wetland system.
Rick Kohler asked the Board for any questions or comments.
The Chairman asked the Board if anyone believed an Environmental Impact Study was necessary following the site walk. Peter Hogan commented that he did not believe an Environmental Impact Study was necessary. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that a “hurry-up” site walk had taken place and no one from the Conservation Commission was in attendance. He continued that he had called Bob Todd’s office requesting a walk of the proposed subdivision area. He strongly urged the Board to wait on granting the waiver for the Environmental Impact Study until the Conservation Commission had an opportunity to view the area. Rick Kohler apologized to Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, with regard to Bob Todd’s office not responding to his request. He noted that
Betsy Dodge and Kim Burkhamer had met with him at the property on two separate occasions. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that neither one of the individuals Rick Kohler had mentioned were able to comment. The Chairman stated that he was unsure of what a “hurry-up” site walk was and advised that a public hearing had previously taken place and the Board scheduled a site walk at that public hearing. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, indicated that he had not received notification of site walk. Shannon Silver clarified that notification of the site walk was emailed to Burr Tupper and suggested that the email the Planning Office had for him be checked to ensure it was accurate. Rick Kohler clarified that when he met with Betsy Dodge and Kim Burkhamer at the property it was relative to the proposed wetland impacts and submission of the dredge and fill permit. He noted that they had received approval for the dredge and fill
permit which not only would facilitate the proposed driveway but would also mitigate impacts from a logging operation that had taken place two years ago.
Peter Hogan asked Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, if he had any specific areas of concern. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, answered that the Middle Branch area was of concern as it was a designated river system. He asked if the PRLAC had reviewed the plan. Rick Kohler answered yes. He indicated that the area of the Middle Branch that Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, had expressed concern over was directly associated with the Piscataquog River and any development could have potential impacts. He continued that in accordance with the NH Stormwater Manual appropriate provisions had been designed to manage the stormwater. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, also questioned the validity of the back lot because it could have an impact on any habitat corridor that may exist
along the river.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, indicated that he would be happy to view the property any time during the week. Douglas Hill pointed out that the problem with scheduling another site walk was that the Board would not be meeting again for another month due to the summer schedule and that would create a burden to the applicant. Rodney Towne suggested visiting the property this evening as it was still light out. Peter Hogan asked if any abutters were present; there were no abutters. He suggested adjourning the hearing early so that Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, could go view the property and come back later in the evening. He added that he agreed with Douglas Hill that it was not the applicant’s fault that someone at the Conservation Commission did not receive their email. Rick Kohler was agreeable to conduct the site walk this evening. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that he was not sure that it was necessary to conduct the site walk this evening. He
continued that there were other people present for subsequent hearings and it would not be fair to adjourn the hearing. Peter Hogan clarified that the other hearings would continue on schedule. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that he wanted to be present for a subsequent hearing. He went on to reiterate that the Conservation Commission did not attend the site walk and that some sensitivity should be given to the back lot.
Douglas Hill asked what the setbacks were on the river. Rick Kohler pointed out the location of the primary set back of 50’, the location of a 150’ woodland buffer, and a 250’ jurisdictional boundary. He stated that all proposed building would be kept out of the 250’ jurisdictional boundary provided by Shoreland Protection.
Douglas Hill pointed out that the Planning Board did attend the site walk. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, again stated that no one from the Conservation Commission attended the site walk. Rick Kohler noted that he may have documentation of the walks on the property with Betsy Dodge and Kim Burkhamer.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to waive the Environmental Impact Study for Robert W. & Crystal L. Nadeau, Francestown Road, Tax Map/Lot #4/14. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if Rick Kohler had been provided a copy of the checklist. The Coordinator answered yes. She added that the bond amount needed to be recalculated. Rick Kohler asked if Jane Perron had addressed the issues with the performance worksheet. The Coordinator answered no.
The Chairman asked if the sample deed could become a condition of the approval. The Coordinator answered that the Board could decide. The Chairman asked if they were typically done before approval. The Coordinator answered that it did not really matter and noted that the Declaration that was submitted did not do what it needed to do and the extra document was needed. Douglas Hill believed the sample deed could be provided as a condition of approval.
The Chairman noted that the only remaining issue was proving that the back lot was a lot and how the Board would require the applicant to do that, i.e., requiring permits versus showing on a plan. Douglas Hill noted that he did not attend the site walk and would defer to the opinions of the Board members that did attend. Peter Hogan stated that he was satisfied with the information provided. The Board agreed with Peter Hogan’s statement.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to explain the outstanding bond issue. The Coordinator explained that the bond amount for the CUP that was originally submitted was too large and an updated amount had yet to be submitted. The Chairman suggested adjourning the approval to the next meeting so that all the outstanding issues could be resolved. Rick Kohler agreed and stated that he would like to satisfy the Conservation Commission and meet for a site walk. The Chairman asked Rick Kohler if he would agree to an extension of the Board’s deadline to act on the application. Rick Kohler agreed to such an extension.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the deadline for Planning Board action and to adjourn the subdivision of Robert W. & Crystal L. Nadeau, Francestown Road, Tax Map/Lot #4/14, to August 24, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked Rick Kohler to advise the Planning Office of his scheduled site walk with the Conservation Commission. Rick Kohler agreed to advise the Planning Office of the scheduled site walk with the Conservation Commission.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/26 Lots
Location: Twin Bridge Rd & West Lull Place
Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5
MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Tris Gordon, Bob and Carol Huettner, Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, Donna Mombourquette, James Denesevich, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Brandy Mitroff, Charles Cleary, Esq., Ian McSweeney, Gordon Russell, Jay Marden, Dave Elliott, Dot Marden, Ken Lombard, Willard Dodge, and Jason Martel.
The Chairman noted that the application was accepted as complete on March 23, 2010, with a deadline for Board action of May 27, 2010. He continued that since the last meeting of April 27, 2010, there had been adjournments and if the Board did not close this matter this evening another extension would be necessary. He stated that there had been recent correspondence from Kevin Leonard, P.E., regarding the preliminary evaluation of the through road, a memo from the Conservation Commission requesting a 100’ setback from the Middle Branch of the Piscataquog River, and a request for more information from Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetlands Specialist, DES Wetlands Bureau. He noted that there was an outstanding waiver request for the road length of the proposed cul-de-sac. He further noted that there was
a question of whether this subdivision posed regional impact. He added that a site walk had taken place on April 17, 2010, and that results of the Technical Review Committee’s review had been received.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that he was present this evening to continue the discussion of the road length waiver request. He continued that at the last substantive meeting of April 27, 2010, the discussion had been tabled until such a time that through road permits were clarified and Northpoint Engineering had completed a review of the proposed through road. He pointed out that an AOT permit was revised and added lot #3/5. He stated that the letter from Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetlands Scientist, DES Wetlands Bureau, expressed support for the road length waiver and included a statement of conditional approval should the road length waiver be denied. He advised that Kevin Leonard, P.E., had reviewed the conceptual through road design and determined that construction of a through road to West
Lull Place was a feasible alternative from a design perspective.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that the subdivision process had begun a year and half ago and after the conceptual design was presented the applicant was asked to meet with environmental organizations and create a mutual concept and obtain the necessary permits. He continued that the applicant had completed the aforementioned requests of the Planning Board. He added that letters of support for the road length waiver request had been provided by PRLAC, The Russell Foundation, and the Conservation Commission.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, explained that when the Planning Board was making their decision on a waiver request it required them to consider the intent of the rule and weigh it against the advantages of waiving the particular regulation. He continued that it appeared that safety concerns were the primary reason for not allowing the through road, specifically, the isolation of properties due to a catastrophic event or fallen trees prohibiting access. He went on to say that the through road design contained a substantial amount of stormwater management design in accordance with the AOT Regulations. He also indicated that the AOT Regulations required a substantial amount of clearing along both sides of the road, primarily the prevailing wind side; he pointed out the locations of the tree lines on the
plans. He added that between 50’ and 100’ of clearing adjacent to the road had been proposed.
The Chairman asked if the proposed utilities were above-ground or underground. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered that the issue of utilities had not yet been addressed formally with the Board; however, the applicant would like to run above-ground utilities from Twin Bridge Road to the wetland crossing and then continue with under-ground utilities. The Chairman asked if the applicant would be agreeable to underground utilities for the entire project. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that he could discuss that option with the applicant. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that in this area of the United States the basic concern with isolation was due to flooding and tree fall. He pointed to the plan and noted that the location of the cul-de-sac was not in the 100 year flood zone, leaving
tree fall to be the primary threat of isolation. He stated that from his own experience of cutting fallen trees from his driveway the process typically takes no longer than ten or fifteen minutes. Peter Hogan pointed out the process could take longer if the fallen tree was on power lines. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, agreed with Peter Hogan’s statement and stated in those instances trained firefighters could assist in the tree removal. Peter Hogan clarified that firefighters do not cut trees off power lines. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that in the event where a fallen tree was on the ground because underground utilities have been installed the isolation time would be insignificant.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that a safety advantage of living on a cul-de-sac was the absence of through traffic creating a situation where neighbors know who are traveling on the road. He continued that should someone be speeding on the cul-de-sac neighbors would voice their concerns to the other neighbor directly. He noted that the creation of a through road would eliminate neighbors being able to address safety issues with one another.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, believed that relative to the road length waiver request safety concerns were a wash. He went on to explain the issues that had been resolved with regard to the road length waiver request and the environment. He stated that the initial plan that was presented was a standard subdivision with frontage along the river which was not palatable to the local environmental groups. He continued that about three months had been spent with the environmental groups, specifically The Russell Foundation, to create the plan that was being presented this evening, Concept D. He reiterated that the plan was supported by the Conservation Commission and PRLAC. He pointed out that although the abutters may not be happy with the subdivision they have clearly stated throughout the
meetings that Concept D was the best proposal that has been presented.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, asked for any questions or comments from the Board. The Chairman noted that although letters of support for the road length waiver had been provided, the Technical Review Committee, which included the Fire Department, Police Department, and Conservation Commission, was unified in their non-support of the road length waiver. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, acknowledged that the Technical Review Committee did not support the road length waiver and explained that was why he discussed the safety issues as that seemed to be the Committee’s primary concern. The Chairman advised that during a separate meeting with the Technical Review Committee regarding cul-de-sac road length all of the safety points that Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, had mentioned had been addressed and their
opinions still had not changed.
Douglas Hill asked if Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, could explain the letter from Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetlands Scientist, DES Wetlands Bureau. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, explained that historically the Board had requested that permits be retained to prove accessibility to lots prior to approval of subdivisions. He continued that in light of Meridian’s history with the Board this application was submitted to DES Wetlands Bureau in anticipation that the Board would require a wetlands permit to be obtained to prove accessibility to the land. He went on to say the DES Wetlands Bureau did not understand Meridian’s reasoning and he had to explain that the need for the permit was to address the road length waiver and to prove accessibility. He continued that they were unsure if the Board was
going to approve the road length waiver request and as such the permit needed to be secured to address safety issues. He noted that as a result of his conversations with Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetlands Scientist, DES Wetlands Bureau, the first permit was issued for emergency access. He continued that at the April 27, 2010, meeting the Board was not satisfied with the emergency access permit and would not approve the road length waiver. He said that subsequently he spoke with Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetlands Scientist, DES Wetlands Bureau, and advised that the Board would not accept the emergency access permit because it was not for public access. He explained that again there was a lot of confusion and Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetlands Scientist, DES Wetlands Bureau, needed to discuss the issue with staff which resulted in the letter that had been supplied to the Board. He noted that the Wetlands Bureau made their decisions based on law and the legal development
rights of property owners that defined what they could and could not do to develop their properties. He stated that access could not be denied. He indicated that decisions were also based on input from environmental entities, primarily NH Fish and Game and the EPA. He read the following from the letter of support from Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetland Scientist, DES Wetlands Bureau, “The DES Wetlands Bureau prefers the less impacting cul-de-sac alternative as this will eliminate the portion of the road that is in the closest proximity to the river. Based on comments from abutters, municipal entities, and other commenting agencies it appears that the cul-de-sac alternative may alleviate expressed concerned as comments focused on the emergency portion of the road. That said, the originally approved alternative, Wetlands and Non-Site Specific Permit 2009-00428, was acceptable to DES and commenting agencies based on project revisions that significantly
increased the proposed open space and buffer to the river. Also, it is reasonable for the Bureau to allow for emergency access. With regards to the pending amendment it is also reasonable for the Bureau to allow applicants access to their properties if the applicable laws and administrative rules are addressed. Based on this and the fact that the amendment requires only a change in the use of the road and does not require any amendments to the previously approved construction, the amendment is approvable.” He went on to say that the letter served as a conditional approval if the Board denied the road length waiver.
Peter Hogan stated that the conditional approval from DES Wetlands Bureau was based only on the information that they were given and contained a couple of assumptions. He continued that the location of the proposed through road that would pass by the Martel’s property required easements that he did not believe the Martel’s would give away. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, clarified that the easements that Peter Hogan referred to had been previously addressed in the Martel’s deed and sales agreement and were not an issue.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, read the following from an email that he had received on May 25, 2010, from Kirsten Pulkkinen, Wetlands Scientist, DES Wetlands Bureau, “Please be advised that the Wetlands Bureau approval of a project does not dictate the town’s decision and the wetlands permit can be amended to reflect changes required by the town. The wetlands permit is contingent on compliance with related enforcement requirements.” He went on to explain that the DES Wetlands Bureau left the decision to the Board.
The Chairman invited questions or comments from the public. Ian McSweeney of the Russell Foundation asked for clarification that the main concerns relative to the cul-de-sac were safety concerns based on flooding and tree fall because of potential isolation. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered that the safety concerns Ian McSweeney mentioned were his interpretation of the primary safety concerns. Ian McSweeney asked how many trees existed on lot #3/5 adjacent to the road and the proposed development area. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered that there were no trees in the locations Ian McSweeney inquired about. Ian McSweeney asked if the proposed road buffer was on average 70’. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered that the initial road cut was between 50’ and
130’ based on the plan profiles with an average of 70’. Ian McSweeney asked if the proposed lots were between one and one and one half acres. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered that with regard to lot #3/5 the lot sizes were just over one acre. Ian McSweeney pointed out that any trees that would be of concern would be small trees planted in front yards and most likely would not be a safety concern. Douglas Hill clarified that the Town agencies’ biggest concerns were not fallen trees but were based on equipment concerns and hostage situations.
Ian McSweeney asked if flooding was one of the Technical Review Committee’s concerns. Douglas Hill answered that flooding was a concern of the Technical Review Committee. Ian McSweeney commented that the highest potential for flooding and isolation issues arose not with the proposed cul-de-sac but with the proposed through road. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, agreed with Ian McSweeney’s statement.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that information contained within the letter from the Conservation Commission to the Planning Board referenced a 2008 EPA study that New Hampshire was one of two states that had been documented to have the most significant changes in weather patterns for flooding and rainfall. He continued that the Conservation Commission was concerned with potential flooding in the area of the Martel’s property because of safety issues and runoff into the river. He stated that another reason the Conservation Commission had requested the 100’ setback was based on the applicant’s Environmental Impact Study that suggested that any kind of residential development would have significant impact on any type of habitat, wildlife, drainage and water quality.
Peter Hogan asked for the elevation of the river and the elevation of the proposed through road in the area of the Martel property. He continued that it did not appear that a road could be designed with any type of legitimacy if the road had a potential of flooding. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that he did not have the elevation profiles with him but referred to the Town Engineer’s opinion that construction of a through road from Twin Bridge to West Lull Place was a feasible alternative from a design perspective. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, added that the Town Engineer’s opinion was based on a design perspective and not a flooding perspective. Douglas Hill disagreed with Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission’s, statement and noted that a design perspective took
flooding issues into account. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that he had an issue with the Town Engineer’s opinion because to his knowledge the required location of a natural high water mark had not been established and in an effort to keep the corridor open the Conservation Commission’s suggestion was to implement a 100’ setback.
Douglas Hill stated that the Planning Board found themselves between a rock and a hard place with regard to the cul-de-sac versus the through road issue. It was his opinion after taking into consideration all concerns the cul-de-sac design was the better design, however, the Board had been told many times that none of the Town agencies were in support of the longer cul-de-sac. He continued that everyone had made good points and now a decision was needed. Peter Hogan stated that he was not clear on the elevation of the proposed through road and believed that the road would need to be significantly elevated. He believed that the corridor where the road would be constructed would not be passable. Jason Martel indicated that the area in question had become impassable, to his knowledge, only
once since he had owned his property. Jason Martel explained that in March of 2010 he and his neighbors at Turtle Cove had been trapped in their homes for five days because a tree had fallen across a road which was not a cul-de-sac. He believed that not approving the cul-de-sac length waiver because of fallen trees, flooding, and/or terrorists was silly.
Brandy Mitroff stated that the packet that the Technical Review Committee had submitted to the Planning Board contained research that disputed early claims that New Boston was the only town considering restricting the lengths of cul-de-sacs. She explained that cul-de-sac length restrictions were statewide and nationwide practices. She believed that the one thing that could be lost when an applicant was looking at their own subdivision and those exact abutters was that they were not the only long subdivision road in town and that issues could arise during emergency situations. She stated that what was troubling the Technical Review Committee was that longer cul-de-sacs were becoming the norm and there did not appear to be an end in sight of the requests being approved. She stated that she hoped as
a resident that the Board would take the concerns she addressed under consideration.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that he understood Brandy Mitroff’s points and reiterated that the Board needed to weigh the real safety concerns against the benefits that would be provided to the Town through the open space proposal. He continued that the plan being presented was a real middle of the road compromise between saving an environmental area and allowing a property owner a reasonable development of their property. He stated that the applicant had done their due diligence and was now asking for the Board to come to closure on the road length waiver request for purposes of moving forward one way or another.
Brandy Mitroff stated that every single developer that has a longer cul-de-sac has made the exact same environmental arguments. She did not disagree that the environmental arguments were good ones, however, the cumulative effect needed to be considered. Peter Hogan asked if Brandy Mitroff had seen all of the cul-de-sacs she referenced completed and if so was there one where the subdivision that was built was not the superior design. Brandy Mitroff answered that aesthetically, yes. Peter Hogan said that he was not just speaking to aesthetics but also environmental and a real practical application of safety. Brandy Mitroff answered that five years ago she would not have given as much weight to the safety concerns, however, in light of the recent floods and ice storm she placed more weight on
the issue. She stated that the old adage of “just because it’s there not every piece of property is your right to develop it to its maximum extent,” would satisfy both the safety departments as well as the environmental groups. Douglas Hill disagreed with Brandy Mitroff and explained that the applicant had come before the Board with the support of the law and engineering to prove that the plan was approvable and the Board could not deny development. Brandy Mitroff pointed out that the Board could deny the road length waiver. Douglas Hill explained that if the cul-de-sac length waiver was denied then the through road would be constructed. Brandy Mitroff asked if anyone had run the numbers to determine the amount of money it would cost the developers to construct the offsite road improvements. Douglas Hill pointed out that determining costs for developers was not the role of the Planning Board. Peter Hogan commented that the
days of stating that a road could not be constructed in a certain area did not exist anymore because of advancements in technology. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, added that the applicant’s own Environmental Impact Study suggested that development of a through road would have a negative impact on water quality and habitat. He pointed out that the wetlands ordinance allowed for the requested 100’ setback. He further stated that during the Technical Review Committee meeting it had been brought up that the applicant could connect the proposed cul-de-sac to the other development that they already had in place and shorten the length of the current proposed cul-de-sac. He noted that the suggestion was dismissed because it was too expensive to construct due to the need to cross over wetlands. He commented that other alternatives had been available to allow the developer to maximize his profit. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that
during Phase I of the project a loop road had been proposed and the Conservation Commission objected because of the existing red maple swamp. He pointed out the location of the wetlands in question on the plan and noted that it was a highly valuable to the function of the remaining wetlands that connect the Middle Branch.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission’s, opinion as a member of the Conservation Commission was that the proposed cul-de-sac was okay. He continued that as a citizen he had a problem with the proposed cul-de-sac based on the arguments made by the various safety organizations in Town.
Peter Hogan asked Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, to point out the location of where a 1,000’ cul-de-sac would end on the plan. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, pointed to the location and stated that they would be lucky to reach the first proposed wetland crossing. Peter Hogan asked if it would be safer to construct a 1,000’ cul-de-sac with 1,500 driveways.
Donna Mombourquette of West Lull Place commented that she respected the opinions of the Town’s safety departments but she believed it was important to look at what New Boston was all about. She continued that if New Boston had the type of topography and natural resources that required longer cul-de-sacs versus destroying the natural resources then the Town should move in that direction. She stated that cul-de-sacs needed to be approved on a case by case basis depending on their location.
James Denesevich of West Lull Place stated that at the April 27, 2010, meeting it was discussed that the applicant would determine if it was feasible to construct a through from West Lull Place to Lull Road and inquired if that issue had been addressed.
Gordon Russell of the Russell Foundation explained that he was involved with this project because the property started out as a mess as it was clear cut, had erosion issues, disappearance of wildlife, and problems with the river. He continued that the applicants were asked to sit at the table with environmental organizations and think about the use of the land for the common good. He stated that the applicants did sit with environmental organizations and they listened and as a result progress had been made to save the land along a very important stretch of the river. He commented that although two of the three main wildlife travel routes would be cut off one would remain viable and he believed this was a compromise he accepted. The Chairman stated that the Technical Review Committee would respond
in a similar passionate way that bad things had occurred with the creation of the proposed plan.
Willard Dodge stated that he was troubled by the potential flood area of the proposed through road. He believed that any questions regarding the possibility of flooding should be answered before any decisions were made regarding the through road. Douglas Hill pointed out that the Town Engineer did confirm that a through road could be constructed in the proposed location.
Willard Dodge commented that the wildlife patterns would drastically change with the construction on all of the proposed lots.
The Chairman clarified that the Town Engineer’s letter specifically addressed the flood plain issues and determined that the through road could be constructed. Peter Hogan was not comfortable with the Town Engineer’s assessment that there would not be any flood issues. Rodney Towne suggested that Peter Hogan complete his own measurements at the location in question if he disagreed with the Town Engineer. Peter Hogan asked if the road bed was reviewed in making a determination that the through road could be constructed. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered that he did not have the information that Peter Hogan was looking for with him this evening. He went on to say that the through road was not what the applicant was presenting for approval this evening. He explained that
the plan with the extended cul-de-sac was being presented for approval and if the waiver was denied then he would reappear before the Planning Board with detailed plans for the through road. He further explained that the applicant did not wish to move forward with the through road based on what had been asked of them by the Planning Board over a year ago. Rodney Towne pointed out that the applicant had originally wanted to move forward with the through road. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, disagreed with Rodney Towne and showed the original plan with lots along the river. He again stated that after meeting with the environmental professionals as the Board had asked them to do the applicant wanted to move forward with the proposed plan that was supported.
Jay Marden of Gregg Mill Road commented that everyone was in favor of the plan that was presented this evening. The Chairman clarified that not everyone was in favor as the Technical Review Committee had voiced their non-support of the road length waiver request. Jay Marden stated that the only issue with the plan was the cul-de-sac that measured over the allowable 1,000’. He stated that he did not agree that the alternative through road would be constructed through the wetlands. He believed that support for the through road would change by 180 degrees and questions would be raised regarding the validity of the engineering. It was Jay Marden’s opinion that a through road would not be a valid alternative. Douglas Hill pointed out that the Town Engineer had confirmed that
the through road was feasible.
Charles Cleary, Esq., attorney for the applicant, stated that he had done some research into cul-de-sac length limitations and found that safety was a concern but the primary reason for the limitations was based on planning and traffic analysis. He explained that the traffic analyses were conducted in populated states such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island where planners were concerned about too much traffic on a cul-de-sac. He did not believe that safety was the primary reason that the Town of New Boston should adopt a cul-de-sac length limitation. He went on to say that the Town was balancing the likelihood that a cul-de-sac road as opposed to any other road was going to have a safety issue. He understood the safety departments’ concerns but asked the Board to balance the
safety concerns in the overall scheme of things, keeping in mind that cul-de-sac limitations were created for traffic planning purposes. The Chairman stated that Charles Cleary, Esq.’s, points may be true in a general sense but specific reasons had previously been listed to the Board that figured into the decision of the maximum of 1,000’ cul-de-sac road length. Charles Cleary, Esq., disagreed with the Town’s reasoning and asked how a fire hose would assist in getting a person beyond a fallen tree. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that the length of the hose did not determine the cul-de-sac length but the number of people that could respond to a particular incident. He went on to say that the safety departments could only guarantee enough people to maintain 1,000’ of hose at a daytime fire, for example.
Ian McSweeney explained that the cul-de-sac length was a restriction that the Town had and a waiver was a way to get around that restriction. He stated that road length waivers had been granted for other subdivisions because the Board had determined that the priority was protecting natural resources. He questioned whether the Board believed protecting the river was a priority in this instance. He passed out a map of the Piscataquog River from the Weare town line to Route 13. He stated that as a result of the approval of the road length waiver the entire Middle Branch of the Piscataquog River would be protected. He noted that if the waiver was denied, impact within 40’ or 50’ of the river would occur. He further noted that State, Federal Government, and the Town’s
Master Plan and Zoning Regulations encouraged protecting the river and creating the proposed corridors.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated NH Environmental Services and the Town of New Boston’s Zoning ordinances defined a structure as anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground. He continued that a road would be subject to the same restrictions as a dwelling with regard to setbacks, maintenance of buffer areas and wetlands. The Chairman commented that this was a subsequent issue that was separate from the cul-de-sac road length. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, agreed with the Chairman and stated that he just wanted to make sure that the information he shared was understood. Peter Hogan pointed out that the issue was not separate from the cul-de-sac road length waiver because if the Board approved the 100’ setback as requested by the Conservation
Commission then a through road could not be constructed.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that these were public hearings and with the exception of one person who was present in the audience that spoke to the position of the Technical Review Committee, the other audience members had routinely been present to support the proposed plan. He believed that the Planning Board should also weigh who attending the meetings. The Chairman understood what Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, was conveying but explained that a process was in place that the Technical Review Committee had their meetings to make their inputs and it was not incumbent on them to attend the Planning Board meetings.
Rodney Towne questioned if the Board was considering calling tripling the distance of a regulation a waiver as he believed that was asking for total destruction of the rules book. Douglas Hill responded that a waiver only indicated that a change was being made to the ordinance and the size did not matter. Rodney Towne commented that he was amazed that the Board was considering tripling the length of what was on the books. He continued that any motion made to approve the cul-de-sac length waiver should be accompanied by a motion to abolish cul-de-sac length restrictions. He stated that if the Board was going to consider approving the road length waiver then the Town should look to getting two acre lots instead of the proposed small cluster lots. Peter Hogan added that density was the key to
cul-de-sacs, noting that the denser the cul-de-sac, the greater potential for danger. He questioned what the maximum height of the river was and the finished level of the road. He stated that he was did not know whether or not the Town Engineer had looked into the maximum height of the river and the finished level of the road. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that the Town Engineer’s review was done with the plans the Wetlands Bureau had approved. Douglas Hill pointed out that the proposed subdivision was an open space subdivision which meant the lots needed to have small lots. Rodney Towne commented that if the Board was concerned about the environment then two acre lots should not be a big issue. He went on to say that from the time the property was stripped to the present the concern was getting the most out of this piece of property. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, pointed out that the getting the most of this property would have
been moving forward with a conventional subdivision with river frontage. Peter Hogan stated that he was still uncomfortable with the density of this subdivision in conjunction with the length of the cul-de-sac. He continued that tripling the allowable length of the cul-de-sac was a swallow for the Board and he needed a giant selling point to take the suck pill that would be handed to the Board for the next two years from the safety departments. He went on to say that whether or not the Board agreed with the safety departments’ rationale regarding cul-de-sac length, their recommendations needed to be treated with a considerable amount of respect. He believed that if the density was less on a long cul-de-sac then it would be the same net gain of a shorter cul-de-sac with the same density. He added that he did not have enough information to make a decision on whether a through road could be constructed as he was unsure of what the Town Engineer had
reviewed.
Douglas Hill stated that he liked the design of the proposed plan with the longer cul-de-sac and would approve it as is. He also believed the applicant deserved to have a decision on this matter.
Peter Hogan asked Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, if the applicant would be willing to reduce density and by how much. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, replied that he was unable to make that decision. He added that the proposed plan had been accepted under current Town design standards and regulations. Rodney Towne disagreed that the plan met the requirements as the cul-de-sac was longer than the maximum of 1,000’. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that he was referring to the question of density and added that it was not prudent for density to be discussed this evening as he was present solely to resolve the road length waiver.
Peter Hogan did not believe the original question of whether or not a through road could be constructed to meet the requirements of the Town’s regulations had been answered. The Chairman asked if Peter Hogan was saying he could not answer the waiver request until the question of the through road was answered. Peter Hogan confirmed the Chairman’s statement. He added that his preference was to approve the plan with the cul-de-sac but believed that Town needed to receive something substantial to be handed the safety departments’ suck pill. He went on to say that if the through road were to be constructed it would most likely not look as it currently did in the plan because the applicant would maximize the property. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, indicated that if the applicant
had to move forward with the through road they would still try to accommodate all the input from the environmental organizations. He stated that this cul-de-sac proposal was unlike any other cul-de-sac proposal that had been before the Board and weighed heavily in favor of the environment. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, noted that he was not exactly certain that the road would have to be above the 100 year flood zone. He went on to say that many roads were in the 100 year flood zones. Peter Hogan stated that he would be satisfied that the Town Engineer reviewed the through road plan and if he was provided with the height of the road. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, personally guaranteed to the Board that planning profiles were provided to the Town Engineer. He identified the existing grade and proposed grade of the location in question on the plan. The Coordinator provided the plan from the files. Peter Hogan stated that the plan
represented that the proposed through road would be 6’ above the flood zone. Douglas Hill clarified that the proposed through road would be about 10’ above the existing grade. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, was skeptical at this information. He stated that he had been to the location in question and there was no way the road was 6’ above the flood zone. Douglas Hill clarified that the proposed through road would be constructed to be above the flood zone.
Rodney Towne expressed that he had a lot of concerns. He stated that when the property was initially stripped and the original plan for a through road was presented the property was not viewed as an environmentally special piece of property and all of a sudden it was now viewed as environmentally special and the applicants were asking to triple the length of the cul-de-sac without any bump for the Town. Charles Cleary, Esq., noted that the “bump” was the fairly large amount of open space that the plan contained. Rodney Towne commented that a cul-de-sac could not be bought with open space. Charles Cleary, Esq., explained that Rodney Towne’s previous comments made it appear as though he were looking for some kind of quid pro quo. Rodney Towne answered that he was looking for
something more than the minimal allowed for each lot.
Dean Mehlhorn indicated that he liked the design and although the Board would put up with a lot of grief he would approve the proposed plan.
Peter Hogan stated that he preferred the cul-de-sac design over the through road. He continued that he was reviewing a plan drawn by Meridian that contained original grades and finished grades. He further continued that the Town Engineer, although vague, maintained that the through road was feasible. He commented that he did not believe that the Board could require the applicant to improve West Lull Place in its entirety. He also did not believe that the Town would necessarily want West Lull Place to be improved to current specifications. He added that constructing a road along the river would not make people happy. He stated that he did not want the Town to incur the burden of bringing West Lull Place up to current specifications. He noted that the aforementioned reasons were
why he believed the cul-de-sac was the better design. He was, however, uncomfortable with the proposed density and believed that the Board could make the safety departments happier by eliminating some of the smaller lots. He noted that it was not uncommon for the Board to tweak density for lots as the planning process proceeded.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the waiver of the cul-de-sac length of Twin Bridge
Land Management, LLC, Twin Bridge Road & West Lull Place, Tax Map/Lot #2/62 &
3/5. Peter Hogan seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION: Peter Hogan stated that the density may be tweaked in the future as the Board had made a giant concession in allowing a long cul-de-sac. He continued that the safety departments had concerns and the applicants should address them. Douglas Hill agreed with Peter Hogan that the Board could review the density. The Chairman believed that underground utilities would have to be installed for the entire project. Peter Hogan and Douglas Hill agreed with the Chairman. Douglas Hill stated that he would not approve the road length waiver without installation of underground utilities beginning from Twin Bridge running all the way to the cul-de-sac. The motion PASSED. AYE – Dean Mehlhorn, Douglas Hill and Peter Hogan. NAY – Rodney Towne.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, thanked the Board for the discussion and the decision. He advised that formal plans had been submitted to Northpoint Engineering but a hold was placed on the engineering review until the road length waiver had been resolved. He requested that a future meeting be tabled and the statutory deadline be extended until Northpoint Engineering had completed their engineering review. The Chairman asked if all of the issues from the Town’s checklist would be incorporated into the plans at the next meeting. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that he believed that the comments had already been incorporated into the plan that was awaiting review. The Chairman advised that a checklist needed to be completed as well.
Peter Hogan MOVED to extend the deadline for Board action and adjourn the application of Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Twin Bridge Road & West Lull Place, Tax Map/Lot # 2/62-12 & 3/5, to August 24, 2010, at 8:00 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposal by PSNH to remove trees on designated Scenic Roads.
Present in the audience were Jeffrey Enman, Arborist, and Patricia Monbouquette. The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that David Crane, Arborist, Preventative Maintenance Coordinator, PSNH, had requested a public hearing regarding the removal and trimming of trees and brush on Clark Hill, Colburn, Hooper Hill, Riverdale, Scobie and Thornton Roads. He acknowledged that Jeffrey Enman, Arborist, was present in place of David Crane, Arborist.
Jeffrey Enman, Arborist, explained that PSNH would be conducting maintenance trimming along New Boston’s roads that would be about 75 miles in distance and a list of the trees on the scenic woods had been submitted. He pointed out that about 95% of the trees being removed were completely dead. He stated that PSNH needed to obtain permission from the Board for this project and subsequent permission from the landowners. He noted that once permission was obtained the circuit would start at the new substation on Twin Bridge Road in Weare. He advised that Asplundh Tree would be completing the work of removal and trimming. He explained that a permission specialist had two options for gaining permission: 1) Talk face to face with landowner; 2) send a letter. He continued that in the
event face to face permission was not attainable then a letter would be sent to the landowner asking for permission to remove and/or trim trees on their property. He indicated that the landowner had forty-five days to respond to the letter and after that period if a response had not been received PSNH assumed permission was granted. Peter Hogan asked what happened if permission was denied. Jeffrey Enman, Arborist, answered that no tree removal and/or trimming would take place on a property where the landowner had denied permission.
The Chairman stated that it appeared that twenty-five trees would be removed from the scenic roads. Jeffrey Enman, Arborist, confirmed the Chairman’s statement but noted that a lot more trees than that would be removed in total. He noted that the brush under 4” was also important to keep trimmed.
Patricia Monbouquette of Clark Hill Road asked how far back the tree removal and/or trimming would go. Jeffrey Enman, Arborist, answered that the removal and/or trimming would be done following current specifications of 8’ to the side from the pole line, 15’ over, and 10’ under.
The Chairman asked if the removing and/or trimming had begun. Jeffrey Enman, Arborist, explained that this project had not begun as permission had not been obtained.
Patricia Monbouquette asked if stonewalls would need to be moved on the left hand side of Clark Hill Road heading down to the village. Douglas Hill clarified that no stonewalls would be moved; only tree branches and brush.
Patricia Monbouquette noted that there was a significant amount of signage on Clark Hill Road. She specifically pointed out that the sign for “The Meadows” was huge and believed it should be moved further away from the road. Rodney Towne advised that the sign in question was not permanent and would be removed when the lots for the subdivision were sold. Patricia Monbouquette stated that she had concerns with other traffic signs into Town. Douglas Hill advised that Patricia Mombourquette should direct her concerns to the Board of Selectmen in the
Proposal by PSNH to remove trees on designated Scenic Roads.form of a letter.
The Board asked for any further questions or comments; there were no further questions or comments.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the proposal by PSNH to remove and trim trees and brush on Clark Hill, Colburn, Hooper Hill, Riverdale, Scobie, and Thornton Roads. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED.
4. Fax dated July 14, 2010, from Raymond Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc.,re: Hillman Properties, Tax Map/Lot #’s 2/28 -2 & 28-3, Weare Road, for the Board’s review and discussion. (Representative from Sandford Surveying & Engineering, Inc., to be present)
Raymond Shea from Sandford Survey was present to briefly discuss the above-captioned matter. Also present in the audience were Willard Dodge and Ken Lombard. Raymond Shea stated that the property was located at the Napa Auto Parts store on Route 77. He advised that this subdivision consisted of three lots; lot #1 owned by a separate owner, lot #2 Napa Auto Parts, and lot #3 back lot. He pointed out that there was access through the back lot’s frontage. He indicated that an approved easement existed for access to the back lot and that the easement contained two wetland crossings totaling about 3,500 s.f. that had been installed.
Raymond Shea stated that the Napa owner was contemplating selling the back lot and wanted to change the location of the access. He explained that the owner was concerned about security issues because any new owner would need to drive through his back parking lot to access the back lot. He further explained that the location of the back lot’s access also posed safety concerns as traffic unrelated to the business would be traveling through the parking lot. He stated that the owner would like to remove the two existing wetland crossings and move the access location for the back lot to the back lot strip. He advised that he had previously met with the State regarding the changes and the State believed it was reasonable as long as the impact of the proposed square footage was similar to the
current square footage. He added that after completing a wetlands delineation it had been determined that the impact for the proposed wetland crossing was about 200 s.f. less than the existing wetland crossings.
Raymond Shea stated that the goal of this meeting was to advise the Board of potential plans to provide the back lot with access on its own lot. He added that a dredge and fill permit would be needed for about 3,400 s.f. and a restoration permit of about 3,600 s.f. He stated that the project would require a CUP and he asked the Board if they would require the submission of an amended site plan. He noted that the owner was not interested in submitting an amended site plan as there would be no effect on the operation of the business.
Rodney Towne asked if Raymond Shea was aware of the original rationale for creating the current access location. Raymond Shea believed that the original rationale was that the one wetland crossing would be larger than the two wetland crossings. Douglas Hill asked when the existing wetland crossings were installed. Raymond Shea answered that the existing wetland crossings had been installed in 1996. Willard Dodge added that when his son, Bill Dodge, had owned the property he had requested to construct the wetland crossing where Raymond Shea was proposing but he was denied.
Raymond Shea asked the Board for their informal opinions of the presented plan and whether or not an amended site plan would be required. Douglas Hill stated that he did not have any issues with the plan. Rodney Towne asked if the back lot was zoned residential. Raymond Shea believed that the current zoning of the back lot was commercial. The Chairman noted that the site plan may need revision because the easement and wetland crossings would not be there any more.
The Chairman asked for any further comments or questions. Raymond Shea noted that he would be meeting with the Conservation Commission on Thursday to discuss the proposed changes.
23. Ken Lombard to be present to discuss potential rezoning of Tax Map/Lot #6/40, or portion thereof.
Ken Lombard stated that he was present to ask the Board’s opinion of a potential open space project. He advised that for the past year the Open Space Committee had been trying to negotiate with Ernie Thibeault for the purchase of the gravel pit property located on Byam Road; he pointed out the location of the property on a map. He explained that the reason for wanting to acquire the property for the Town was for future need of a new fire department, new school, etc.
He noted which lots were zoned Industrial, Commercial, and Residential-Agricultural. He stated that previous discussions had occurred citing the possibility of creating a second village in this location and in the interest of moving forward with the project there could be an option of allowing Thibeault to retain ownership of a small area of the property that could be used for commercial use.
Douglas Hill asked for the price of the property. Ken Lombard answered that Ernie Thibeault was asking for $2,000,000.00. He added that a more reasonable figure was $1,000,000.00.
Ken Lombard asked if the Board, in principle, would support potentially rezoning the R-A lot as commercial. The Board agreed that they would support the rezoning of the R-A lot to commercial.
The Coordinator added that the Open Space Committee needed to know if the Board would be willing to propose a warrant article that would rezone all or a portion of the R-A lot. The Board agreed that they would be willing to propose the necessary article.
5. Letter dated July 6, 2010, from Reggie Houle Builder, LLC, Daylily Lane Subdivision, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that the bond had expired in the above-referenced matter. Douglas Hill asked if it had been determined how the bond expired. The Coordinator answered that when the bond was due to expire the Planning Office had contacted the bank. She continued that the bank was working on it and the financer of the property had also contacted the bank. She explained that for reasons unknown the issue disappeared from everyone’s radar. Douglas Hill asked who was responsible for keeping track of this issue. The Coordinator answered that it was the responsibility of developer. She advised that banks did not automatically renew the bonds.
Douglas Hill stated that he understood this and noted that the bond should be called upon. The Coordinator agreed but explained in this situation at the time the expiration of the bond came to light it had already been expired for two years.
The Coordinator explained that after speaking with Town Counsel it had been determined that the Town was liable for the home that was currently being lived in at the subdivision. She stated that a court case had recently been decided on where it was found that a town had some kind of liability to people living in a house on a road that had no bond and was not owned or maintained by the town. She noted that a letter had been sent to Reggie Houle that suggested he resolve the bond issues and he responded that he was unable to do so. She advised that the final step was for the Board to revoke the remaining lots and prohibit the sale of the model house.
Douglas Hill stated that he was not in favor of revoking the lots. Rodney Towne asked if building permits could still be issued for the remaining lots. The Coordinator answered that the Board had sent a letter to Reggie Houle informing him that no building permits would be issued for the property.
The Chairman asked how the issue of Town liability could be resolved. The Coordinator explained that the Town would need to finish the remaining work to be completed on the road.
Dean Mehlhorn asked how many homes were on the road. The Coordinator answered that currently there was one home being lived in and one model home on the road. Dean Mehlhorn asked if the model home had a CO. The Coordinator answered no and added that hold had been placed on issuing a CO for the model home. Shannon Silver pointed out that Reggie Houle did not have any money or credit to complete the road and by placing a hold on CO and not issuing building permits he would not be able to make any money. Douglas Hill did not believe a hold should be placed on the CO. Rodney Towne was in favor of keeping the hold on the CO while letting Reggie Houle know that if he got a buyer he should ask the Board to release that hold.
The Chairman asked for the amount of the letter of credit or the expired bond. The Coordinator answered that the amount was between $60,000.00 and $100,000.00.
The Board decided to send Reggie Houle a letter wishing him good luck in retaining the funds to complete the road and advising him that the Board would continue to monitor this matter.
6. Letter dated July 10, 2010, from Jessica Seif and Jacob Hull, re: permission to apply to the State of NH for a license to foster dogs, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that Jessica Seif and Jacob Hull needed a letter from the Board to be sent to the State with permission from the Town to apply for a license to foster dogs. Rodney Towne commented that this was not something that the Board did. Shannon Silver clarified that the State required a letter from the Town by statute. Peter Hogan believed that site plan review process would be necessary. The Coordinator was unsure if Jessica Seif and Jacob Hull met the criteria to go through the site plan review process.
Rodney Towne suggested sending a letter that explained that the Town of New Boston did not have any procedures or ordinances that would prohibit this practice. The Board agreed with Rodney Towne’s suggestion and decided to send a letter to that effect.
8a. Schedule a site walk for Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, CUP, Wilson Hill & Bedford Roads, Tax Map/Lot #9/24.
The Board scheduled a site walk for the above-referenced matter for Wednesday, August 4, 2010, at 6:00 p.m.
8b. Discussion, re: bond for CUP of Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, Wilson Hill & Bedford Roads, Tax Map/Lot #9/24.
The Coordinator stated that the bond for the above-referenced matter would expire on August 10, 2010. She continued that the renewal had been started and the Planning Office had received a cancellation notice. She stated that the financial institution was contacted and advised that the bond needed to remain in effect and it was reinstated, however, it was done so without an extended date and will expire on August 10, 2010. She added that the dredge and fill permit had expired. She explained that the bond would expire before the next Planning Board hearing of August 24, 2010, and asked the Board what they wanted to do with regard to this matter.
Douglas Hill suggested that the applicant use a letter of credit or cash for the bond. He also pointed out that the Board would be conducting a site walk prior to the expiration on August 10,2010, and if they were not satisfied with the work that had been completed the bond could be called.
22. Schedule a site walk for Keith Diaz, CUP, Tax Map/Lot #12/35-10-1, Arrowwood Road.
The Board scheduled a site walk in the above-referenced matter for Wednesday, August 4, 2010, at 6:30 p.m.
7a. Discussion, re: Bilodeau Firewood Business, Joe English Road.
7b. Memorandum dated June 28, 2010, from Town of New Boston, Board of Selectmen, to Planning Board, re: Bilodeau Firewood Business, for the Board’s discussion.
The Board decided to discuss item 7a and 7b at the next Planning Board meeting of August 24, 2010.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 10:34 p.m. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
| 
